liberty to receive proselytes with certain restrictions as to their genealogy, provided they offered themselves in sincerity, yet from the first they were kept as much as possible apart from the rest of mankind, in order that the line of the Messiah's descent might be well defined, and God's dealings with mankind liable to no misconstruction. The prophet's reply shows that he was neither unacquainted with the great object of the Mosaic polity, nor influenced by any bigoted and sectarian views. There was hope for the Syrian, though he returned to his own country; and he might there hold and exemplify his faith in the true God, even though he did not conform to the ceremonial enactments of Moses. He might continue to serve his king, yet be true to God; might discharge the several offices which his station imposed on him, yet connive at neither idolatry nor hypocrisy. By attending the king, he would not shock his prejudices, nor incur his displeasure; and thus might be made the instrument of ultimately leading him to sacrifice with himself at the altar of Jehovah. In short, the commission of idolatry could not have occurred to either Naaman or Elisha; otherwise the former would have convicted himself of insincerity in declaring his faith in God, and the latter of faithlessness to his solemn trust. The fact that Naaman was not without his apprehensions that it might not be lawful, under any circumstances, to adopt a posture similar to that which the king employed as a sign of reverence to his idol, bespoke the great moral change which he had experienced, and the true state of his mind toward God and duty. It cannot, therefore, be used as a precedent, much less furnish an apology, for sinful connivances.

What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? What agreement hath God with idols, or what concord hath Christ with Belial? Such are the questions which Christianity proposes to every one who has been brought to the knowledge and belief of Him who "was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners;" and who died to redeem and to "purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works." Under the superior light of the Christian dispensation, "whatsoever is not of faith," performed without a full persuasion of its lawfulness, "is sin;" and even what is "lawful" may not always be "expedient." Hence, the Christian convert, aware of the

deceitfulness of sin, scrutinizes his motives, as well as guards his actions; and since our judgment is liable to be warped by custom and interest, by a desire to please men, or even to gratify self under the plea of serving God, aims to weigh every question in relation to truth and duty in the balance of the sanctuary. Unless he "adorns the doctrine of God his Saviour in all things," and herein exercises himself that he may always have a conscience void of offence," his acknowledgement of Christ as Lord has no connection with " a new heart and a right spirit." Man may call him "Lord, Lord," and bow the head to no other name; but unless he desires to know and do the will of God, hates sin, and fears to sin, and aims to purify himself even as Christ is pure, he is without the pri mary and essential evidence of being a new creature in Christ Jesus. He whose soul has been cleansed from the guilt of sin, will watch and pray that he may be delivered from its power.

THE UNPRINCIPLED SERVANT.

It is singular, that, while Naaman's servants appear to have been good, Elisha's servant should, notwithstanding his superior advantages for knowing and doing what is right, have been devoid of generous sympathy and moral principle: yet it is not so remarkable as that Josiah should have had such a son as Jehoiakim, or Christ a Judas among his disciples. But even such instances find their parallels at the present day. We cannot prejudge with accuracy as to one's character and course through life, from the instruction which he receives, or the example he enjoys. We know, from observation, that while the son of an infidel may become religious, the son of a Christian may be sceptical; that while a Romanist may be a good servant, a Protestant may be a bad one; that a heathen will be true to his word, when a man of superior moral illumination will betray his trust.

It does not follow, however, that one religious system is as good as another; that examples exert no influence; or that natural conscience and common sense, as David Hume was wont to insinuate, constitute a better security against vice and crime than the restraints which religion imposes. It proves rather that a little light is far better than the greatest advantages when neglected; that men may be good, notwithstanding a defective education and imperfect example; and bad, though the influence of both precept and example may have been brought to bear on their minds; that he who breaks through the restraints of a virtuous education, or withstands the motives which a knowledge of Divine truth presents, must necessarily be worse than he who has been brought up under the

influence of worldly morality, and in all things aims to secure success in life.

It might be supposed that Gehazi would have respected his master's disinterestedness:1 such instances of gratuitous service must have been then, as they are now, singularly rare; while they seldom fail to elicit general applause. No act wins to itself such hearty approbation as an act of disinterested benevolence; yet none is so seldom imitated. In the estimation of Gehazi, the prophet was doubtless a very good man; but then he was a weak man, if not a fool: He needs not have demanded a fee before giving his counsel, but he should not have rejected a fair expression of Naaman's gratitude. It was uncourteous; and, besides, it was as easy for one in Naaman's circumstances to part with a few talents as to express his thanks.'

Such are the thoughts which often serve to restore selfishness to the complacent consciousness of its own superior wisdom, when it has been constrained to render a tribute to benevolence; such the not unfrequent judgment of the world in relation to Christian self-denial. To forego temporal advantages for the sake of adherence to moral principle; to refuse a pecuniary compensation when so great a benefit has been conferred; or be generous toward those who are abundantly able to recompense a meritorious service, is, in the view of many, an indication, if not of imbecile sensitiveness, at least of ruinous improvidence. To act with a reference to duty, having an eye single to God's glory and man's good, is what minds of a certain class do not understand, with which they have no sympathy, though they may laud benevolence, and despise selfishness! So reluctant to condemn itself, and so deceitful, is the human heart.

Yet may any one ascertain his own ruling passion, who will but candidly ask himself how he would have acted under the circumstances in which another was placed. It is in this way, by proposing a suppositive case, that guilt has often been detected; and the reason is, that however easy it may be to refrain from the actual commission of wrong, or to deny a charge, it is not possible to preclude the suggestions of either covetousness, ambition, or sensuality. From the recesses of 1 2 Kings, v, 20--27.

one's reflective solitude, nature will speak. The world knows not what is going on there; but the man himself cannot be deaf to the language of his own voiceless thoughts, nor insensible to the promptings of his own selfish desires. He would have taken the gift; he would have seized that opportunity of filling his coffers, of establishing his fame, of gratifying his lust of pleasure, or his pride of revenge. In the mirror of his own heart he sees himself to be actuated by passions, which, if known to others, would stamp his character with the brand of selfishness, be it the ruling love of money, of fame, or of sensual indulgence.

It might be thought, moreover, that Gehazi would at least have had such respect for his master's honour as not to shake that high opinion of the prophet's goodness with which Naaman had departed. By soliciting the talents, he might not only place his master seemingly in an equivocal attitude, but give occasion for Naaman to doubt whether the religion of an Israelite was, in fact, purer than that of a Syrian; thus tending to seduce him from the worship which he had so recently embraced. But what was all this to one whose heart was set on gain? And what is the honour of religion, or the welfare of souls, to one who has surrendered his heart to mammon? Even now there may be found those who care not how much they impede the cause of Christ, or what reproach they bring on his name, so long as they can subserve their mercenary purposes.

This servant, under the plea of providing for two young men of the sons of the prophets, could serve himself, having no concern for them, except so far as an allusion to their circumstances might elicit sympathy, and secure the coveted treasure. This is one of the expedients to which covetousness not unfrequently resorts, to accomplish its ends. What are pious frauds, all pathetic appeals to fictitious cases of poverty and distress, of widowhood and woe, either to raise money or to lower just demands, all violations of truth, either that the sympathies of the benevolent may be enlisted, or that good may result to others, but so many instances of the fraud which Gehazi practised on Naaman? His sphere of observation must very circumscribed who knows not that covetousness often gratifies itself under the plea of doing good; or seeks its own,

be